Skip to main content

About this Show

Public Affairs

News News/Business.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17






America 56, Us 27, United States 14, Grassley 9, Graham 7, Schumer 6, U.s. 6, Washington 5, San Diego 5, Feinstein 4, Steve 4, Alabama 4, Ireland 4, Mccain 3, Obamacare 3, Ronald Reagan 3, Texas 3, Steve King 2, Mr. Mcgovern 2, Steven Miller 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Public Affairs    News  News/Business.  

    May 14, 2013
    10:00 - 1:01pm EDT  

minorities, we are doing it for everybody, even for somebody there are examples out there of somebody who is generally old and does not have some of their original documents that some laws require in order to get an id. would say, yes, it is great news that the -- that race is no longer that big of a problem when it comes to voting. that minorities are getting out to be polling places. we need to make sure that they always have that ability to do that, not only them, but everybody. host: you can follow his reporting. thank you, sir. i appreciate it. now, we bring you to live coverage of the senate judiciary committee grade -- committee. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> members have told me they would like to get this bill finished. i am doing what i can to avoid a saturday meeting this week, so i am -- asn get a
couple more here, we can begin. >> i welcome everybody here and what is probably the ugliest room in the whole united states senate brent -- senate. compared to some very nice rooms. i think when the building was designed, it was somebody who must have worked for mussolini ,r stalin type of architecture but they were a junior member because they got even worse than a designs the overseas. it is saved from being the ugliest building in washington by the fbi building, which is probably the ugliest.
senator graham, myself -- i would assume people are serious about getting going, they will show up. ok, we have enough here? keygration reform, the consideration for me was the pathway to citizenship not be a false promise. the secretaryth last month, i was reassured this is fair and achievable. in aommittee worked bipartisan way to reject obstacles reaching
that goal. and week, we met for hours worked with scores of amendments grade bipartisan majorities, -- [indiscernible] thisess and compromise, morning we continue our work and will conclude consideration of amendments related to the board security title. hopefully we can do that quickly and turn our attention to nonimmigrant visa provisions in title four. these are very important to copperheads of reform. i want to see us improve -- comprehensive reform. we all know that companies like havehot -- yahoo, google benefited.
we need to do more to keep these companies and american workers in this country. the american taxpayers have helped pay for innovators and would tell them they have to go .ack to their own countries [indiscernible] >> i will wait until the amendments,. >> we have nominations, the seven foot over, as i understand. ?> how many do we have here >> you are talking about this agenda here.
time flies. we have the senators with us. the senator has just come in. ok, we have enough to start with. senator feinstein, i understand that you have amendments number
11, drones outside of border areas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lastmbers will recall, week i offered a substitute amendment that would limit the use of drones to along the southern border itself and not the whole region within 100 miles of the border. the reason for that is that we have several million people within 100 miles of the border in cities in orange county, san diego county, reaching all the way up to long beach within that mileage. soon his record and mentioned he was concerned about because texas is different and he saw drones as being valuable with that respect. we have worked together and i am submitting an amendment here that says in essence, the united states border patrol may not
operate unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles in the san diego and l centro sectors except within three miles of the southern border. so that, in essence, exempts what i'm concerned about in the city of san diego, other cities having these drones flying overhead. san diego has a vague international airport. there is one last concern, and that was just brought to my attention, a concern of senator mccain, that these he drones be permitted to operate off the ocean in the san diego sector. now, i just learned of this five minutes ago, and i am told that is not the prerogative of the border patrol, but they do operate there. senator, yield for the question. are you modifying the amendment? >> yes, i am modifying the
amendments. >> she is -- has the right to modify the amendment. .> that is line 22 before you call a vote, i did not talk directly to senator mccain, but i can tell you faster votes up and down the coast, it is a problem. it is a heavy drug trafficking area, not necessarily a bad thing. it prevents alien smuggling over the water as well. i do not -- have not addressed that yet to read i would reserve to address it on the floor. it would be something we all agree to, i hope. that you arend prepared to accept your amendments -- those in favor of the amendment by the senator from california as amended,
signify by saying aye. the aye's do have it. record.gain for the we have the appropriate number. i am trying to go back and forth. >> we will go to -- >> i will like to offer a second degree amendment. it is been developed in close consultation with senators blake
and mccain. i appreciate they're working with me on this. this amendment would limit nighttime deportations, which at -- which at times new list lee put people in danger. is to limit dangerous practices but not to tie the hands to prevent them from using this practice. there are exceptions in this amendment wehner mobile's are done in accordance with local repatriation agreement or where justified by a direct interest. i remain concerned about the practice of lateral repatriation for pragmatic and humanitarian reasons. it is costly and does not work. there was another story that found no effect in the program of reducing recidivism. i would like to enter that a university of
arizona study that i introduced last week. >> without objection, your as substitute it with your amendments. >> thank you. we now call on to give a study to report measures, to show whether it does or does not reduce recidivism and asked to explain how it takes factors into account in its operation. this amendment would require the border patrol agent to return lawful property to migrants before the dachshund deporting them where practical. this change would do the most to ensure repatriates and to make sure they're not needlessly the pride of money and other property when they are forced back to their country of origin. i express my thanks for the
senators for working to focus on this amendment. >> is there further discussion? if not, those in favor of the amendment as amended by his substitute, signify by saying aye. the aye's have it. is ready.mendment --not, we will go to senator a complete substitute, as i understand? the want to call up amendment 18. this deals with the w visa. a temporary worker program that can provide for the needs of the american economy is an essential part of preventing future illegal immigration. that one would not be in
order, that will be later on. ability toect your bring it up, but it is not -- that part is not before us at this point. >> could we bring that up at a later time? let's do that. >> you also have amendments 1 and 3. >> if we could hold off on those, that will be great.
>> let's have our staff discussed that. >> this is schumer amendment one. it adds technical corrections involving spelling, grammar or striking redundant language and it does make a few qualified technical changes or clarifications. the reauthorization of the brand travel promotion funding to mark pryor language did not make it clear that bill did not intend to redistribution -- redistribute funds that were meant for travel promotions. it clarifies the manner in will be family backlogs reduced. chargedfies a $500 fee to employers for hiring people in the visa program only applies to summer work travel programs. this fee is to encourage the hiring of american workers.
it clarifies the fees are also liberal market research. with regard to the new visa program, it clarifies the secretary of homeland security of the agency which authorities had determined the prevailing wage. i think all these amendments we have discussed and i think they mean peoples -- >> i appreciate the hard work. you have gone over that with others, which i support. i don't know of anybody else wishes to speak to it. >> it is not so much on the issue of the amendment, there are about five or six parts of this bill that are in the jurisdiction of other committees and this is one of
them. have you consulted with the committee of jurisdiction on this and are they ok with putting it in here? >> most of these involve the preparation committee. we have entered -- consulted with them, yes. >> in every authorization, would that not be the appropriations committee that will be the authorizing committee as you consulted with the authorizing committee? >> yes. we consulted with them. is their present discussion? those in favor, say aye. the aye's have it. senator sessions, i called on you earlier. back to you. >>chairman.
this is the amendment number 13410 dealing with the biometric exit system that is missing from current law. beginning in 1996, congress has passed a series of laws, actually six different times through mandate and require that a biometric injury exit system be established for the nine states -- entry-exit system. the commission has recommended this being essential for our national security. the reason is very simple. most airports, you clock in with a system, but it is biographic, which is easily forcible and not not secure.and the nothing is done about
exit, particularly at the land port. as a result, no one can examine on documents and determine if they left the country at the time they were supposed to leave the country. this is a big hole in the system. it has gone on for years and years, and i have to tell you, this is one reason american people have so little confidence in any promises we make. the reason why it is difficult that we would say we're going to grant an immediate amnesty with this legislation, we promise we will fix the -- and force the issues in the years to come or months to come or many years to come. we have not fulfilled that. for example, in its 96, the congress adopted this system requirements. in 2000, congress passed another andrequiring these systems
land ports of entry. in 2000, when amending the visa waiver program, congas required a fully automated control entry andrecord departure information for all atms participating in the machinethat they be readable. after 9/11, congress demanded exitimitation of an entry- system through the passage of the patriot act. the congress said in light of the acts perpetrated against the united states on september 11, 2001, the attorney general in consultation with the secretary of state should fully implement the integrated injury systems and exit data as expeditiously as practical.
congress demanded the system being biometric. based on temper resistant machine that document, we can do this. this is not that hard to do breed a biometric system requires an immigration document to match the individual presenting to the immigration official. there are a variety ways to make this document. i personally think from my experience in law enforcement that the fingerprint system should be the basic data system because that is what happens in our states, whether it is in illinois or alabama or hawaii. if someone is arrested, for a area, and may be fled the their fingerprints are put into the system. by jigging fair prince, you are the five fugitives. the court -- by checking fingerprints, you identify the
fugitives. unlike names and dates of birth which are biographic, which can be changed, by graphics are unique and it virtually impossible to forge. this helps the government prevents people from using fraudulent documents, enter the country illegally, helps protect your identity in the event your travel documents are lost or stolen. that is the analysis on the law and what it means. in 2002, congress reiterated demand for the system in all ports of entry requiring onlyand security to issue machine-readable tamper- resistant visas and other travel documents that use biometrics identifiers.
it has not been done. it also requires the government install biometrics scanners in all ports of entry into the united states. not been done. in 2002, department of homeland security initiated immigrant status indicator technology program. in 2004, congress commanded a system to the passage of the intelligence reform act. congress finds that completing a biometric injury and exit system -- entry and exit system as expeditiously as possible as an essential investment in efforts to protect the united states by preventing the entry of terrorists. this was in 2004.
the secretary of homeland security shall develop a plan to tolerate the full imitation of an automated biometric data system. action.a congressional this is the saddest of what we do. it is operating at about 300 ports. we do have an entry system that is operating, however the exit program has never gotten beyond the stage despite widespread congressional support. it is impossible to know how many aliens have overstayed their admission. they found without the exit system, we don't have a system that is viable. it is not effective. it is a flaw in the plan. throughout the years that dhs has been working to implement
in a system, it appears they have finally given up. they don't pretend to desire to implement it in the future. they quietly terminated the last pilot program, and there have been several highlight programs over the years. the president 2013 budget does not specifically request money, it is not asked for the money to do it. $73 million for border infrastructure and technology. dhs is now implementing --graphic systems grade systems. janet a. napolitano said that is what we're going to do now. my amendment simply requires that we do what current law
requires, and not back away from that. my colleagues say this is the toughest system we have ever .ad, but it undermines this law it backs away from the system. colleagues, it can be done effectively and easily. as you exit cards the system without any real delay. would the senator yield for a quick question? would that permit someone whose name was simply misspelled -- detection in terms of the system? >> yes.
i think he is correct about that. >> under the system we propose, that would not happen. first, it needs to be machine readable. .econd, we use a picture the picture is tamperproof, and in terms of secure not letting people in as a biometric. everyone who comes and does a pitcher and goes on the database. you can't temper with it. it is go out, we know you. it is the difference between what senator sessions wants to do and what is in our bill. our effectiveness is just as high, it is just cost. at having an exit system was huge hole in our enforcement regime. 40% of all people who are here in america illegally did not cross the border, rather they overstayed their visas of
various types. that would not be allowed to happen under our proposal. instead of costing $25 million, a it would cost much less than that. it is harder to change your face then change your fingerprint. that you haveink the exit system set up that will work, therefore we cannot determine who is staying in the country and who is not effectively. >> will the senator yield to me on this point -- i will be very brief amount hoping to set an example, i do not think the pathway to citizenship should be a false promise. i hate to keep saying it is just over that mountain, oh when you get over that mountain it will be the next mountain. the drafters were trying to get
a bipartisan agreement on these triggers. their triggers are realistic, but i do not think this is. and i stick with a bipartisan drafters of the bill on there's. >> they have agreed, no doubt. they still meet regularly and they decide which amendments will live and die. they apparently decided this will die, but i do not agree. do not believe it meets the standards of the entry/exit visa that congress currently requires and there is no doubt that this legislation, instead of strengthening the security of the visa system weakens the security relative to current mandated requirements. i would note to my colleagues that at this .40% -- at this
point, 40% of the people in this country illegally entered on a visa and did not return. you cannot read -- determined who did not return if you do not have an effective exit system. i would be glad to work with anyone to try to make the system as efficient and productive as possible, but the fundamental principle that we need an entry/exit system is not so, and your proposal, senator schumer, explicitly eliminates the current requirement that there be an exit system at land borders. you do not dispute that, i trust. that is what we are, mr. chairman. i think it is the right and reasonable approach. if we are going to be asking the american people to trust us, we should comply with the law rather than weakening it.
>> does the senator won a roll call vote? >> yes. last week we considered a number of amendments that all failed, and i think that was a mistake, but there is one way the committee can improve this legislation and that would be to adopt senator sessions commonsense approach. it is true that 40% of the illegal immigration does not come across the border. they come in illegally, over- stay and melt into the american landscape, and can do not locate them until they commit a crime and are hooked up by the police and their name is -- picked up by the police and their name is run against a database. the 9/11 commission, after the terrorist attacks, recommended a biometric entry/exit system. thison.
the senator from alabama has pointed out, this has been the law of the land, but it has never happened. well,not think of any -- i believe that the failure to enact an entry/exit system on a biometric basis, as the senator is advocating, which is essentially the current law that has never occurred, could lead some people to believe this bill is designed to fail to keep the problem -- promised we said we .ould fix i know the chairman said you do not want to put obstacles in front of people that want to get on a pathway to citizenship, but at the very least, the other side of that is we want a system that works and this will not work.
i do not know how after 17 years later congress has not force the executive branch to implement an entry/exit program, and how people can trust us that somehow we have had a conversion and it will happen now, absent a trigger. my conversations with senator rubio, he happened to share with me that disney world uses a biometric system to ensure people do not commit ticket fraud. if they are that easy, affordable and good enough for the magic kingdom, they ought to be good enough for the united states. amendmentsions' would guarantee they would not be eligible for lawful citizenship until there is a biometric entry/exit system.
i do not know how leadership will ever do what congress mandates them to do unless we use this trigger. it is that simple. i believe this is a constructed -- constructive amendment that reaches the stated goals of protecting the united states system and making sure it is fair and workable. 40%e choose to ignore the of immigration where we create a system that can be evaded, we have ignored our constituents concerns and failed to fix the problem. employed system, the only thing this will guarantees is that we will be sitting in the same spot trying to explain why there have been more empty promises and no results. i hope the committee will report the amendment from senator sessions. senatoror feinstein,
andin, and senator shuman senator grassley and senator sessions asked for a roll call vote. senator feinstein and senator grassley. thank you said -- for the opportunity. i have looked at this for 15 years, since the days of doris meissner. toward pushed and shoved a biometric exit system that is the best ecological he and there is no question in my mind the bedroom -- biometric system is the failsafe system. the problem is, we have not been able to do it. me thatschumer assures the biographic system with a photograph cannot be changed. i do not happen to necessarily believe that. the other problem is the cost.
what i keep hearing is this incredible cost that it would raise the bill to cost. becauseeal frustration we have had homeland security executive after homeland security executive come in, commit to timelines and not be able to carry those timelines out. so, i have to think a lot about what i am going to do here. the department just has not seemed to be able to do it. my understanding is that it adds $10 billion to the bill. >> $25 billion. >> $25 billion, over what time? >> 10 years. biometric system in atlanta and detroit, and just did not work.
more people got through. the system that we have in place -- of course, the present law is terrible. we know that. what we have tried to do is put in the best system that is workable within a reasonable amount of time. >> what you are telling me is there is a photograph -- if you grow a beard, mustache, change the color of your eyes, deplete your face, that all of that will be picked up? because you can change the way your face looks, but the visa card you go in with and out with has to be the same. you cannot tamper with it. >> yes, but an individual would. .n any event, i am for the bill i am concerned that the identification be the best identification we can come up
with. i have seen too much fraud. i have seen cards bought for 100 and $10 in los angeles -- social security, drivers licenses, you name it. my understanding is if you use the iris of the i and these other biometric features, you have this failsafe system. >> you can always change the iris of your eye, to. the system that we have used -- i have been advocating biometric as my good friend knows for years and when we started this we found it was the best system because the biometric has failed for a variety of reasons. there are two failsafe -- one is the card, and a second is the photo. tos comes as high as any
making it work. .> i believe there was a lineup senator grassley, you are next. >> thank you. first of all, we just heard this figure -- $25 billion. i have heard the same figure. i do not know where it comes from, but i have heard it from airlines and airlines do not want this. that is why you get that figure of $25 billion. if there is another source than airlines, i would like to hear it. in the meantime, i would take issue with the charge that has been made that it is easier to change fingerprints then it is the face, and also take issue with whether or not this delays citizenship. to citizenship, we should not delay a longer
than that, but in the meantime, if this has been on the books for more than 10 years that this should be done, and we have another 10 years -- if we cannot get something right in 20 years, there is something wrong with what we are trying to do. it is that people are impeding it as opposed to let's get the job done. that is the attitude that we need to take toward everything we need in this bill to secure the border, ensure people get citizenship, make sure there is a legalization. if that is the goal in congress, we need to make sure we get the job done. i will add my name as a cosponsor of this legislation. i think that this amendment will make us safer, and on this bill thewe pass this
way it is before us without the amendment, it will be weaker than current law, and it seems to me we should be strengthening law not weakening law. there is just a lot of lessons learned going way back to the 1993 world trade center bombing. we have to learn from our past .istakes the sessions amendment would ensure the intent of the 1996 law is carried out. what is wrong with reasserting what the law is a benchmark if we want strengthen our immigration system, we should not be passing a law that weakens it. that ifgood is a system only some courts keep track of departures -- you get down to the bottom line, this is a border security issue. without a system like this in
place, we are not in control, and you are compromising the sovereignty of our country. if hong kong can brag about every cargo that goes out on their ships, they know what is inside, whether or not there is any material that can be used for terrorist activity -- surely we ought to be able to tell who comes and goes from our great country here, the greatest country on the face of the earth. i yield. .> senator durbin >> thank you. i am sorry senator cornyn stepped away. i wanted to address a couple of issues he raised heard -- he raised. he said there were no republican amendments adopted, and i am sure he would agree that we applied several amendments. this has been a bipartisan effort and it should continue to be. i also wanted to address walt
disney. they have two ports of entry. we have 329 ports of entry in the united states, which include land, sea and air. if we are talking about being able to read cards at all ports of entry for those leaving the united states, it is more daunting than it is at disney world or disneyland. what we are trying to do is do something that is achievable and make america safer. we would all concede the biometric approach is more sophisticated and perhaps better, but we have to concede that it has been elusive. we set this as our legislative goal since the 9/11 commission and because of the expense and technological challenge we realize it is not likely to come about very soon. we have come up with a strong alternative that will make america safer and this
affordable, can be implemented and will provide verification of those leaving the nation. ask why it is taking so long over and over again and it turns out to be a very expensive challenge. we will continue on the path toward a biometric solution, but in the meantime what we include in the bill is a dramatic improvement over the current situation. let me add one other thing -- if this sessions amendment results in delaying the implementation of this bill, it means that fewer people will come forward to be identified in the united states, and that cannot make us safer. we want to make sure that those that are eligible for temporary status or citizenship status come forward and identify themselves, and those who are ineligible from the start will not be in this country any longer. we want to continue the process
toward eventual citizenship in a reasonable way. i am afraid the sessions amendment sets a standard that is not attainable, not affordable and not one we can realistically look forward to implementing in the near term so i will oppose. >> i am glad senator durbin mentioned the lehi-cornyn leahy-nt -- lehi -- cornyn amendment. we also adopted the grassley two amendment, the grassley five amendment, the cornyn six, the flick one amendment, -- flake one amendment and the flake two amendment in the grassley one amendment, and the grassley before amendment -- 24
amendment. those are just some to indicate that we had both the democratic and republican amendments. go ahead, senator sessions. >> i agree that this is not so much a partisan matter. it is a bill drafted by a bipartisan group and they will accept modest amendments that do not make much difference but they do not accept anything that deals with the integrity of the bill. there will not be a delay. certainly, you would not oppose the bill if we had a biometric entry/exit system in it. surely you would not delay the passage of the bill if we have it comply with her in law, and it gives the secretary -- with current law and it gives the secretary 10 years to get around to it. the airlines have opposed this
for the last 20 years. that is why it has not happened. senator feinstein remembers the debate that we have over it. "usa today" has just written an article about it could -- about it. blames itriggs primarily on the airline's objectives. it is not a technological problem. senator feinstein, you are correct in that the government has established a system to collect fingerprints and pictures of every foreigner entering the country. they get that at the embassies before they get their visa. when they come, they are clocked in on the system. it is basically when they go out that we do not have the system working. so, secretary riggs said the failure -- the further we get
from 9/11, the less interested congress has begun in insist -- become in insisting that we have an exit system. we just lost our will along the way. that is pretty much what michael chertoff, who is also with homeland security after riggs said is the gold standard for saysity, and "usa today" they remain convinced biometrics are the way to go. these are not people making partisan charges. after being heads of this organization, they remain convinced biometrics is the way to go. there is a 9.73% accuracy rate, and "the usa today" uses the figure $3 billion to $6 million as the cost that could be incurred. i think it could be done for
less than that if we are careful. a majornot take alteration to have a person go through the line where their card can be read when they get off on an airplane. how hard is that? ashink what we have, secretary napolitano basically told us in the committee as she believes biographic is sufficient. that is what she is committed to. the bill drafters put that in it, and it does not strengthen security at our ports and entryways. it weakens it. it undermines the credibility of the bill sponsors that they are making the bill stronger when it plainly makes current law weaker. i really believe that so much effort has gone into this -- i was involved with it with secretary ridge and i urged him as my colleagues know, on the
toortance of fingerprints any criminal justice identity system because in all of your states, counties and local areas, terminals are fingerprinted -- criminals are fingerprinted and they are available in the national crime information center and is available to any inquiry and would be dubbed by this system. -- picked up by this system. i talked to secretary ridge at length about it. he was not sure for a long time but some months after our last conversation when he left office he said i have advice for my successors, and that is use the fingerprint system. he given a lot of thought and time to that, and as a result i urge my colleagues to support .his amendment
>> senator graham wishes to speak before we call the roll. >> i think this is a very good debate to be having about immigration but not really limited to immigration. how can we protect the nation at a time when the nation is very much at risk? . two of the 9/11 hijackers were visa over-stays, stopped by the police. to me, that problem has to be addressed in light of the world in which we live. current law is the concept. , there is not a lot of oil by republicans or democrats to make the concept a reality. we had the white house from 2000-2008 on our watch and apparently we did not move forward. at the end of the day, biometric identification of people coming and going, i think, would be a good thing, but what we have done is taken the current system and made it at her. -- that are.
-- better. if you want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for a biometric system, count me in for moving in that direction, but i would say to senator sessions, checking your wallet and see how many biometric cards you have -- how many drivers myense are biometric, military id is not biometric. i am not saying it is not better, but it is generally not deployed. >> with my colleague yield -- would like colleague yield for one quick point -- senator grassley mentioned disney world. it is true that disney world used a fingerprint, and then disneyland went on to use a picture. making my colleagues case 30 >>
i have no idea, i am too busy to go to either one. >> this is my drivers license from vermont. no photo, nothing. >> i would suggest you improve that in vermont. >> i kind of like it the way it is. here is the point, senator schumer and i wanted a biometric card for employment certifications. theou like ronald reagan or democrat you would like to be named, i could make you that person under the social security system in about one dollar. when it came to employer verification, i think e-verify will work, but the best system is to turn our paper card into a biometric document to protect american jobs, or we will do that because it costs so much money, but count me in for getting there one day, for having the biometric system
applied to entry/exit visa programs. we're just not shown the the will or desire to do that. there are technological barriers. i would end by saying the current system is not where we need to be. nobody seems to be driving toward that goal. our bill, in my view, improves the current system to make us all safer. toone thing i failed mention -- the biometric system has not failed, it is being used across the government. when you get a visa, you get a biometric identifier that is read when you enter the country. they are doing 30,000 queries a day in the united states through the u.s. visit system on biometric identification visas had we just do not have the system complete. -- visas. we just do not have the system
complete. this is doable. it is already being done and it can be done. i am disappointed the sponsors are not willing to make the system work as designed. in the senate do have to go ongraphs on it, the floor, it goes through a machine and it says whether the staff member has foreign privileges or not. i suggest the senators check that. if you put your u.s. senators id in, it will say you do not have privileges. maybe they are trying to tell us something. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. schumer, mr. durbin, mr.
mr.ehouse, mr. franken, coombs, mr. blumenthal, mr. mr.sley, mr. sessions, ,atch, mr. graham, mr. cornyn ,r. lee, mr. cruz, mr. flake mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, the votes are six days, 12 names. >> the amendment is not agreed to. senator blumenthal will be recorded as having voted as indicated but in person. >> i just spoke to senator schumer, and perhaps on the floor we will put something in that work will continue on the
development of a biometric system. i am convinced that as the technology becomes better the cost will go down. so, i will work with him to see if we can put some addendum in there. >> senator lee, you have an amendment? >> yes, if i can call up numbers 12 and three. i will not asked for a vote. each of these is a strike and replace amendment that shows we could do this in an incremental fashion. we could be passing immigration form by having one bill dealing with border security, another with them ploy he verification, and another to deal with these a modification and so forth. we do not have to lump all of them together and hold all of them pending the outcome of a single most contentious issue, what to do about the 11 million. nonetheless, in the interest of time, so we can move forward, i
will not be asking for a vote on the amendment. thank you mr. chairman. --you have the amendment the substitute amendment to replace the bill? >> yes, these are three substitute amendments. i am not asking for a vote. >> so they are withdrawn. >> yes, they are withdrawn, thank you. >> i appreciate it. we have one more, senator sessions, and then we could close out the triggers and borders security. senator sessions, you have another amendment, or do you? title, and theut next set of amendments affect title four, subtitles eight, the, and see. , b and c.
>> my next amendment that might one up next might be under and four, but i will wait if you do not mind. call it up now, so that we can close this out? go ahead, senator sessions. , this is a very important amendment. >> i assume all your amendments are important or you would not bring them up. >> i know, but it deals with the whole -- >> what is the number? >> sessions one. it deals withuch e ons tin and should support,
what works for america, what allows immigrants to have a reasonable opportunity to be successful if they come, and to try to think about in a serious way what it is we are doing here. this legislation before us today will give you the next 10 years pretty close to 30 greenn, probably more, cards or permanent status in the united states. that is a huge number. under current law, we have told the american people that we have a legal system that admits closer to 1.1 million people legally. that is a lot of people. that number is the highest of any nation in the world and my amendment would call us to generally understand what we are doing.
we have that one million people that will come legally, currently, but on top of that, you have this 11 million that are here in legally, and they would be given legal status at one time. that would be 11 million people in giving legal status in the united states. there is a so-called backlog out there. it is not the perfect word because they backlog suggests people have not been processed properly, but there is a backlog because more people are applying for the family based or change migration than are allowed to enter. they are awaiting their time, and you have 4.5 million waiting. the bill sponsors, i guess, to the criticism that you have allowed people waiting in line to be delayed while you allow
illegal people to become legal solve that dilemma by just allowing the people waiting in line to be expedited and brought into the country. that is an additional 4.5. capefore, by freeing up the for more people, they come without any reference to skills, education levels, or other standards. they wait their time and come in. flow,not a skill-based either. of the 11 million that are here illegally, at least half of them do not have a high school diploma, and overwhelmingly, they are lower skilled people, to. then, what does the bill do about the future flow? according to the center for american progress and "the los
angeles times," they project the future flow will be about a 50% increase. i think that is close to accurate. so, instead of 10 million over the next 10 years, we will have 15 million brought in lawfully over the next 10 years, meaning we will have entered into the country in a lawful status over the next 10 years 30 million persons. that does not include all of the family-based, chain-based migration where caps on have been removed that would allow more to be brought in. that is a conservative number, i believe. no doubt about it. my colleagues would say well, you 11 million are already here, you should not count them. well, let's just talk about that a little bit. 11 million people here,
i have heard estimates that about half of them are not working in the normal job market. they do not have forged documents or employers willing to higher than the legally, so they have been working in the underground economy, so to speak. once this legislation passes, all of the 11 million would then have a legal status, able to work at virtually any job they choose to apply to. when i am saying to my colleagues if they would then be able to compete against unemployed, nativeborn, lee or -- or legal immigrants that came into the country and be able to compete for a job as truck drivers, equipment operators, working for the city or the --nty, and any other job
coal mines, manufacturing are notthat now they able to compete for. well, what is our current job situation? it is not good. the current important situation is not good and it is projected not to be good for a long time, unfortunately. i wish it were not so, but that is what the experts are telling us. according to the congressional budget office -- i want you to hear that -- in february, the congressional budget office laid out there 10 year economic forecast for this country and in the last five years of that that we they project would be creating only about 775,000 jobs a month. can you imagine that? surely you say that is not accurate, but that is what they say, and other independent
forecasters are predicting that situation also. for example, are we not seeing a great deal of robotics employee and manufacturing today? therefore we can make more automobiles, widgets and products with less actual workers than we used to use. >> can i interrupt for just a moment? >> we have 18 members on this committee. asking me if it is possible to avoid a friday or saturday session this week. i do not want to cut anybody off, but if people could state the reasons for their amendments for or against them very quickly -- we know how we are going to vote, and i hope that senators would be willing to consider that we all have very busy schedules and might be willing to compress their .tatements for or against
i just mention that for what it is worth. >> as i told you, this will be the amendment that i want to talk the most about. the last one was second. it is downhill after this one, as far as time goes. you can relax, mr. chairman. turn that into a resolution. >> no, i will not turn that into a resolution and i will not make any commitments. they gang of eight has been meeting and i am not sure that they have look at these numbers. theamerican people have the impact onder employment and wages. i have not heard them discuss it other than saying it will and the economy grow
somehow take care of itself. we are not creating a sufficient number of jobs today for the american increase in population. so, now we're talking about legalizing 30 million people. i think we need to be asking ourselves what that will do to working americans who are already hurting. a member of the civil rights and wrote testified, the president of the united states and said this is a civil rights issue. it will pull down the wages and make it more difficult for working americans to get jobs, particularly african americans who are hurting today. myalked to a businessman in state a number of years ago. he does right-of-way clearing for the power companies and counties and that kind of thing. he has been in business for 30 years. he has been in business for 30 years and he said it soon became g veoseo him he was losing
bids? a texas company using illegal workers was underbidding him. he provided insurance, alcare, and people working for him for 30 years, and he could not win a contract and he is about to go out of business. i can say to you you can have too much workers and it could adversely impact wages. a professor at harvard, and acknowledged expert on this, as demonstrated just how much wages are pulled down, in some instances as much as $1600 a year, and that is a substantial difference for a working .merican making $20,000 that is more than $100 a month. i guess i am saying what is our growth prospect? i mentioned the cbo numbers. blue consensus -- most of
us have heard of blue chip -- it is an average of 55 private economic forecasters who are predicting gdp growth below 3% in the future and only 2.5% between the out years, 2020 and 2024. academic economists are predicting that. the day before yesterday, "the wall street journal" published their survey of 52 economists that predict steady but slow economic growth which means slow job creation. "the wall street journal" says "i just for population growth and it will take nine more years to return to the prerecession level of and plan at the same current rate of growth according to the brookings institution." not me.
they are quoting the brookings institution on just how tough it is going to be. you average one million or so jobs created a year, and you are bringing into our country over one million new workers a year, then you have a real problem. what about the natural growth of american workforce that is growing every year? will that labor not pull down wages, make it harder for americans to get jobs, their children, their grandchildren to get jobs? i think it clearly will. i do not like to have to be a negative person here, but i really think we are not considering sufficiently what the right amount of immigration is for america. towant people to come here be able to get word -- get work,
and be able to find a decent wage, but we are in this weird situation, if you think about it, where through welfare, food stamps, earned income tax areit, medicaid, we providing great subsidies for low income workers and the corporations and businesses that are hiring them have not had increases in wages. so, the wages have not gone up, but the taxpayers have been picking up this. my democratic colleagues, i hate havemit, really, what i come to understand are correct in saying that wages have not grown in the last 15 years, maybe the last 30 years. wage increases have fallen below inflation increases for millions of american workers. there is no doubt a large part
of that is because of high immigration flows that we have seen in the last 30 years, and that is documented extensively .n the harvard professor's work it helps the corporations to make more profit, but it is pulling down the wages of 100 workers for every corporate executive that makes a little more money. we need our people working. we need to be getting fewer people on welfare and benefits. we have the highest number of people today on government assistance than we have ever had. so, do we not need to be hoping to get those persons into work so that they can start making more than eight dollars an hour? i would like to see them make more than $15 an hour. why shouldn't that be the goal? not through some government mandated wage control, but
through the natural market. if you allow the natural market to occur by moving an unlimited amount of persons into our country who are in serious poverty now, and this would be progress for them and they are attracted by the benefits of america -- it is good for them, but is it good for the people that we represent? is it good for the national interest of america? they say it will create some jobs. i am sure there will be. i heard that 3.5 million would .e created if you are creating 10 or 12 million jobs over the next 10 years because you go from 10, two 13 -- and i do not accept that number, frankly -- i do not accept we will have another 3.5 million jobs created because we bring in 30 million --
>> can i asked the senator how much longer he has? >> i will not take longer. if you give me the chance to discuss a very important matter -- i know the chairman wants to move forward, but i believe the american people need to know how huge the change that -- a change this legislation impacts the american flow of immigration into the country at a time when we have high unemployment, low wages and millions of people dropping out. so, under the new flow, not counting the amnesty and the backlog of 15 million, the new flow of 15 million means we have about 1.5 million a year entering our country, and assuming one million of those look for jobs -- probably 1.2 million, then you could see
where are we going to have enough jobs to create that -- to meet that demand echo i love my account -- meet that demand? i love my colleagues, i know they are optimistic about the future, but the blue chip consensus, the "wall street thenal" 50 plus economists, cbo economists, they do not predict a dramatic increase in economic growth in our maturity economy. it is not happening in other mature economies, and it is not likely to happen here in big numbers. i think the economy will grow. i think we will move forward in a progressive way, but we do not want to invite persons to america that cannot find work. we do not want to invite people to america that will take jobs that americans need to be taking now so that they are not on welfare and dependency.
so, my amendment would attempt to deal with that. we can deal with it in a lot of different ways. it is not a perfect amendment, but i urge you come if you are concerned about these numbers, to support it because it would eliminate the current visa, matt-based system, -- merit- based system, and have more people entering under a merit- based point system. i congratulate my colleagues for moving in that direction. i have long favored the american -- the canadian point system, but you give a lot of points for civic involvement, and the numbers are not high -- the basic number is 125,000. the maximum number would be 250,000. to 16% of the flow would be covered.
my amendment would make that larger. we know if a person comes to america with a couple of years of college and speaking english they almost always do well and .rosper and flourish people that come with lower skills have a harder time, particularly in this environment. it reduces the chain migration factor in favor of a more merit- based, it does not limit the total number of aliens annually granted green cards. it is more than the current flow. it does not count the amnesty numbers -- the 11 million. it take those aside, and deals with the future flow and it would admit 1.2 million a year and it exempts those that are here illegally that will be given amnesty. there are other provisions in it.
i hope that we can discuss these issues and we will discuss them in the weeks to come. the numbers to me look pretty clear, mr. chairman, that we are not going to have the jobs that are anywhere close to the number thatbs that the number -- this bill would bring in and that it would weaken the quality of life for millions of legal immigrants to america and those that are native born. >> thank you. toeral members have asked put their statements on the record to save time and without objection that will be done. is anybody else wish to speak? senator graham, and then the clerk will call the roll. >> ui, mr. chairman. again -- thank you, mr. chairman. again, i know we want to get a bill done, but neither did it's
very much worth having. at the -- but these are discussions very much worth having. senator sessions has been consistent hard much of what he has said has been echoed on the democrats side, the afl-cio. there is nothing wrong with sometimes agreeing with the people you normally disagree with. there are 10,000 baby boomers a day retiring. , 80 the next 20 years million of us will leave the workforce. i think the best criticism of the bill is that we do not do enough to supplement the future labor needs of the country -- the flights that we had among ourselves about the number of legal immigrants available to our workforce, high skill and low skilled, was one hell of a fight, and we came out with numbers i can live with, but frankly, i wish were larger, because
senator sessions and myself is i see the need for legal immigration growing, not lessening, and as for illegal immigration suppressing wages, a good case can be made that that is true and the best way to avoid that problem is and illegal immigration. me that never convince some people are not hired simply because they are cheaper. i think they are. i think wages have been suppressed to a point, but you cannot go too far in the other direction either. to have access to legal immigration under this bill, you have to first advertise to the community in question at a competitive wage rate before you can hire a foreign worker in the future to make sure employers -- americans do not lose their job because of cheap labor. here is the dilemma -- once the company advertises and they cannot find a native born worker, it is better to bring in
people you can add value to the business is rather than that business close or leave. as for the 11 million coming into the workforce, it is better for the country that we know who they are, that they get paid over the table instead of under the table. you will never convince me that it will hurt the economy to get people into the system as opposed to living outside of the system. as to future flow, we have people saying keep families together -- it is not that i do not want to keep families together. i just do not want the country to suffer under an immigration system that is fundamentally broken forever. what we do three years out is replace the current family- based chain migration system with a more merit-based system similar to canada and other industrialized nations. out of fairness to those that have been waiting under the old system and trying to assimilate
people, we allow those that are here to use the current system -- all family members waiting in line and family members of the 11 million will be treated under the old system. it is not my desire to punish anyone, but to not repeat the mistakes of the past. we transition and give everybody notice about the new system. in the future, about 130,000 visas a year, green cards, that would've been given to family members will be recaptured and given based on the merits and the need of all workforce. we should have done that years ago. our legal immigration system obviously does not work or you would not have the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and if you believe as i do that they are here because of economic reasons, you need to address the economic reasons that brought them here.
as for those that want to continue chain-migration, i'm afraid we cannot accommodate you because it is not good for our country. to those that believe we do not have enough workers, i respectfully disagree. our population is declining and 180 million baby boomers retire over the next 20 years, somebody will have to fill in their spot in the economy and i would like that somebody be based on who we would like to , rather than someone being clever enough to get into the country illegally cared i would like to make a rational decision about under what decisions -- conditions they stay and i would like to make it economic-based. i am most proud about this bill in that in a humane way, people have a chance to flow through, but puts everyone on notice that the system will be more merit- based with a family component.
when you add up the employment hirings based on these categories that happened to be employment-based and merit- based, almost 60% of green cards in the future will be given on economic need, not family association, and that was hard for democratic colleagues to swallow, but they understand why that has to happen given the decline of the nativeborn population and the need of our economy to grow. so, from my point of view, we do not have enough people coming in in the future. as to who we have here, neither one of my parents graduated high school, but it made sure that i went to college, and they made sure my sister went, and they owned a restaurant, and a pool room and a liquor store. you could not get sick because if you did not open up, you did not get paid. so, i do challenge this idea
that somehow the low skilled workforce, because they do not have college or high school degrees, will not contribute to america. i would suggest that the strength of this country is not the degree that one holds, but the character the individual possesses. so, i am very confident and hopeful that out of this 11 million who today have low skills will come some of the brightest in the future, that they will be able to transition legal legal status to status -- even legal status and to legal status and add value to our country. i am confident that america's best days are ahead, and equally confident that if we fail to reform the immigration system this time, our economy would pay a heavy price. those living in the shadows
would continue to be abused and those that are among us in legally that are criminals and off of us would be the biggest beneficiaries. we have been talking about illegal immigration in excess and now is the time to act before it is too late. >> thank you. senator schumer has asked for ,wo minutes, then senator cruz and then we can go to roll call vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. friend fromod alabama, and we are good friends, we are on the bike in the gym every morning, and i respect his passion. i just make two additional points quickly. first, senator sessions, in his analysis, does not take into account if we do not do anything that we will have more people crossing the border. if you take the last decade, it
is about half of one million a year, a little more. if that happens over the next 10 years, and my guess is they will increase, that is another group. we have 11 million people who he counts as part of the 30 million . it actually decreases a little bit. a changes in nature but it decreases. is comparedmillion to nothing. if you compare it to the present system, it is a decrease. in immigration, legal and illegal. do nota that people depressed wages more than
people who are here illegally defies my belief. i ride my bicycle around brooklyn in the morning. workers waiting to be picked up by a truck. i know i sometimes stop and talk to them. what does the guy in the truck or for them? they work 10 hours a day. .hat is depressing wages it not depressed wages as much. it will strengthen the workforce. our future flow is more job oriented. classl cause middle
incomes to co-op at a more rapid rate. the net number of immigrants changes down and the characteristic of the immigrants changes so the economy grows and wages goes up for the average american. >> senator cruz. >> i want to confess to some degree of envy to senator graham's description of his parents owning a restaurant and a pool hall. we may discover at some point he had the nickname of minnesota graham. sayhe substance, i want to i very much respect my friend from alabama and i respect the sincerity with which he has
approached this complicated issue, a very important issue. thisend to vote no on amendment. the reason is i think legal immigration is a fundamental pillar of our country. i regret this committee voted last week down each of the amendments that would have put real teeth in the border security provisions and would have made the -- what have gone a long way to making the borders secure. of legaldvocate immigration. expandtwo amendments to the levels of legal immigration, to make this system work better which has the added benefit of -- as a nation, we need to
remain a nation that celebrates legal immigrants around this thee -- so many of us are children of those who risked everything for freedom. i respect my friend from alabama's amendment but is not one that i can support. immigration byd putting real teeth on border security. i would like to make a few brief comments. there is no real economic difference in terms of providing an excess of labor between legal and illegal workers. >> i've never known you had such an affinity for harvard professors.
. am delighted to see that >> he said that and i think there is value in that. senator graham said we will ask if the american workers are willing to take the jobs. that is for the non immigrant program. year.ion people each all the people, the 1.5 million, americanslion new that would come to be americans lawfully under the increase program. they would not have any such restriction. thatnot believe economists would say particularly for lower income americans that we need more workers right now. i do not see how that's possible.
i guess being a conservative is prudence and asking that the speech -- that we be prudent here. the congressional budget office -- we live and die with them -- say over the second five years america would be creating about 75,000 jobs a month and that that is 900,000over five years -- or 10 years. 1.5 millionng in legally under this bill. crediblyt able to state that your bill reduces the legality. it is an assumption that we're not going to have any more illegal immigration into the country. we have millions that have come today even though they have not
been able to get topflight jobs. the groups that will come in the future will do the same and they will wait for the day that washington provides them amnesty. we have proven that is our policy. people come in illegally for years and years and we provide amnesty. we have to have an end to the illegality. and weaken it from further law. conclude and say what are the economic needs of america? i love the rhetoric and the vision, but i have to be a realist.
the wall street " journal" said we would have a slow-growth. i think that is the pattern. why would we want to increase dramatically the number of people that come to the country and only increased the number it-basesn a more mer system? i'm not against immigration reform. my amendment would increase the annual flow to 1.2 million. i'm not saying we need to reduce its significantly. we should have a solid flow of immigration that this nation has had. it should not be supplemented by a large amount of immigration.
we need to understand how it has impacted the average worker. hard for native-born and lawful immigrants to get jobs. i would say that. with regard to your non immigrants, the worker program for a large portion, people come for three years and they can bring their families. now you have a famine that has been near six, nine years and we will say because he did not have a job we are going to deport you? the program is not designed but becausefail inevitably when we have a tight labor market and people cannot get jobs, they are not going to be
deported. that is a big flaw in this bill and it doesn't fix the visa overstate problem. we'll see a large flow of persons into the country illegally under the visa system. i know you may not have this proven discussion about what it wise country needs to do it on a matter of this importance. but it needs to be discussed. we will talk about it some more. thank you for letting me talk at some length about it. it is a matter that needs more discussion. >> mr. schumer? >> no. >> mr. whitehouse? >> no. >> mr. cruz? >> no. >> mr. blumenthal?
>> no. >> mr. grassley? >> no. graham? >> mr. lee? >> mr. cruz? flake? nays. yay, 17 17-he amendment is defeated 1. whitehouse.ator >> i have a question. thenenator whitehouse, senator grassley has an amendment. >> i like to call up a white house 6 and offers a second
degree to it. the should be a simple and non controversial amendment. people come up and complain they got laid off from their jobs and they know somebody who is doing their job right now who has been broken by the company from out of the country just to do their job. we have done a lot of work to make sure that doesn't happen. i applaud the effort that the gang of eight has done. this is an additional stopgap to create a toll-free number and a site on the web page for people who believe they have been knocked out of their jobs by the wrongful hiring of immigrants to have a place where they can complain. it requires in a year that the
ig take a look at that information and report to us on what it shows. oesn't change anything in the bill. it adds one responsibility to the department of labor. dinners andty people say, i got laid off from my job and there are a whole bunch of workers that are doing my job and are living at the marriott hotel. one person said they had to teach them how to do their job before they got laid off. this will give them some place to complain. we can make sure it is operating as expected. i would hope this could get bipartisan support. >> i don't think there is
objection to this amendment. all those in favor of the amendment indicates by saying aye. the ayes do have it. next on our list is senator grassley. >> thank you. >> i do not want to indicate -- i appreciate the brevity of the senator from rhode island's comments. go ahead, senator grassley. four questions i want to ask on this legal immigration provisions. then i will have five questions i want to ask on the w program. i wantow we're on the --
somebody on the gang of eight to enter about four or five questions. ofst of all, a couple sentences about the purpose of my questions. there is a lot of talk about how this bill has provisions for special interest groups. did a storyrk times" on some of these provisions. there are provisions we refer to ." "facebook carved out the more i dig into some of this, the more i realize there is a story behind it. i would like any of the members of the gang of eight to allow every on the 3 or four points. i will start with a section that
allows foreign nationals to except a payment and associated incidental expenses. they can enter it to receive these payments for "usual academic activities or for a performance appearance or participation in the united states based programming." it appears to be a special provision for higher institutional is. my question and not for debate purposes, i'll accept your answer unless it does make sense to me. someone explain in detail this section? what is the intention? thiss i am understand it, provision is already in the law.
expanded to to be entertainers for contracts and shows. be in does it have to this bill? you have entered my question about the intention. who asked for it? we have to know who suggested -- >> them speak to the south. theision -- let me speak to south korea provision. that was the purpose of that provision coming in. that was all parties on both sides. the porteding about says usual academic activity or for performance and participation in the united states-based programming.
about the south korea think earlier. >> it was the entertainment industry, as i understand it. foreign shows will be able to film here and employ american workers to help do that. ofthat goes to the credit the powerful hollywood lobby. , related to perform maintenance on common carriers. it allows people to enter the united states for up to 80 days to perform maintenance on common carriers. it looks like a special provision for airlines, railways, as these industries
were listed in the section. i would like to know who lobbied to put this provision in. it seems to me that we would have these countries, americans could perform this work. can someone explain the rationale behind the section? requested byne was the cruise ship industry. and a ship is built a board needs to be repaired, they need to bring in foreign workers, such as with the carnival ship that had all that trouble. >> ok. i will ask a question on the part dealing with ireland. it singles out ireland to provide benefits with regard to
the visa application. i like someone to explain the rationale to change the system to benefit one specific country. why did the irish get their own visas for workers? fore have had provisions irish immigration in legislation of 15 or 20 years because the special relationship between ireland and america. push is wast the senator kennedy. what it does is, you have to have two years of work experience. what we're trying to do is be fair. lots of countries get lots of immigrants because the family
relationships are close. many people that came from ireland have second cousins and third cousins. we had a visa program of 1992. 1994iversity program of that all recognize this. the is a substitute for program that is ending. >> is this similar to what scott brown had proposed a couple of years ago? >> exactly. >> i remember that discussion with senator brown. principal find a basis to support the program and i cannot find one now. >> a bill provides for an visas and includes a
so-called market escalator that allows the cap to move up or down based upon the demand. there has been difficulty counting the visas. some say the bill only complicates the matter. does anyone know whether the department of columbine security was consulted with regard to this moving cap? >> the cap is based on employment needs and on unemployment numbers. when there's high unemployment, the number goes down. of a homeland security was consulted and supports the provision. >> did they give any indication of the difficulties in
implementing it? >> they believe they can implement it. >> mr. chairman? ok. >> i just thought if we discuss these caps, people should note 90,000. was at 1 this is less than it was in 2001-2003. 195,000. you aretor grassley, recognized. >> i have some points i want to make about h1b program.
and employers wishing to bring in a foreign worker under the theram must supply to department of labor -- the department will offer the alien the prevailing wage an. there is no strike or lockout. specify theion must number of workers sought and the conditions under which the alien will be employed. employersrent law, must attest they cannot find qualified american workers before petitioning for foreign workers. hey have to take good to--
good-faith steps and offer the job to u.s. workers who are equally or better qualified. these employers must attest that they will not displace a u.s. worker within 90 days of hiring. the secretary of labor reviews onlyonditions applicant for completeness and inaccuracies. the secretary is required to provide the certification, thu;s creating a rubber-stamp process -- thus creating a rubber-stamp in process. the labor condition application is required to be approved. the bill increases or protection for americans and providing more authority to the executive
branch to investigate this type of fraud. the bill is slated to insure that only depend employers as opposed to employers that are not h1b-dependent to feel the brunt. there are some bad actors throughout the program. we have seen people use the visa program to bring in workers who will sit on the bench when employers create fictitious companies. they will fabricate tax returns and submit false petitions for work that does not yet exist. my concerns have been intensified after reading an internal benefit from an compliance assessment the highlights the very fraud and
abuse that we know exists. the agency reported a violation of the cases% studied. some businesses employing h1b visa holders to not even exist. degreescational submitted were fraudulent. signatures on supporting documentation were forged. the beneficiaries of the h1b fees is when not doing what they were claiming they would be doing. one visa holder was working in a laundromat when he claimed he would be a business development analyst. experts have acknowledged that many employers disregard the spirit of the law. those employers find ways to circumvent worker -- to hire
cheaper foreign labor with a violation rate of more than 20% . this should serve as a wake-up call that the visa program is not working as intended. the program has served a valuable purpose. we need to reevaluate how this program operates and work to make it more effective. members advocate for the increased visa allocations rather than understand the heart of the problem. we don't always need more. it might be better to need better. we need to do a better job of insuring that the companies who need the visas and get them. we need to do a better job of oversight and protecting american workers. these are principles that will guide the amendments that i am
offering on the h1b program. i would move to amend a number 58. i would offer that amendment. it would revise the section related to the internet job posting requirements. the bill includes an important provision that will improve transparency about who is applying and hiring h1b these holders. the bill takes a measure from what has been introduced as the bill.-grassley the bill must be listed for 30 calendar days on a website. wages andnly requires experience needed and the
process for applying. my amendment simply adds the title and description of the position, including the location where the work will be performed. posting require the job to klum name, city, zip code of the employer. >> we're leaving this session as the house is gaveling in. live coverage continues on c- span radio and ingto threen. i hereby appoint the honorable -- may 14, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.
the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip , mited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate p.m. ue beyond 1:50 the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, this is farm bill week. today, the senate agriculture committee is marking up their version of the farm bill, and tomorrow the house agriculture committee will do the same. although one bill is written by a republican and the other is written by a democrat, these two bills have one thing in common, they make hunger worse in america. there are 50 million hungry americans, 17 million are kids.
yet, the senate is going to mark up a bill that cuts over $4 billion from snap, our nation's main anti-hunger program. but that cut pails in comparison to the cuts in the house farm bill. mr. speaker, tomorrow we are going to mark up a farm bill that includes a $20 billion cut in snap. $20 billion. mr. speaker, at a time when we have 50 million hungry americans, at a time when we have 17 million hungry kids, a reason-led congress is going to mark up a farm bill with $20 billion cuts in snap. mr. speaker, we were elected to solve problems and help people, not make things worse. we were elected to help make lives better. we were elected to do the right thing. cutting snap, making it harder for hungry americans to put food on their tables is the wrong thing. taking $20 billion out of this program will do real harm to americans who simply are trying
to make ends meet. there are some in this house, some on the agriculture committee who say this is about reducing error rates in the program, that this is about getting at fraud. well, let me remind them that snap has one of the lowest error rates, if not the lowest error rates in the federal government. that is something we should be proud of, and it is something we should celebrate. mr. speaker, these cuts do not get at fraud. these cuts don't make the program more efficient. these cuts don't help reduce or end hunger in america. these cuts in this bill will make things worse. that's because the cuts in this bill will kick two million people off of snap. that's two million hungry americans who currently rely on snap to help feed themselves and their families. that's two million low-income americans who are having trouble making ends meet. these cuts will cause 850,000 households to see their snap benefit reduce by $90 a month. $90 a month. that's a big
the cuts in this bill will cause 210,000 children to lose access to their free schools meals. these 210,000 poor children currently receive free school meals because their families can't afford to pay for their meals. but it will result in 210,000 losing access to free school meals. this bill even cuts nutrition education programs, a program that is designed to help educate snap beneficiaries about how to buy and prepare more nutritious foods. imagine cutting this critical nutrition program while obesity and access to unhealthy food is on the rise. to put this in proper context, these cuts would come on top of an across-the-board cut in snap that every recipient will experience starting on november 1, 2013. because snap has been used as an a.t.m. to offset other worthy programs, a family of four will already be seeing their snap benefit cut by an
average of $25. so to recap. not only will we see automatic cuts in snap this november, the house farm bill will make things worse by cutting $20 billion additionally from the program. this simply cannot stand. tomorrow during the farm bill markup, i will offer an amendment that will restore these cuts. i hope that all my colleagues on the agriculture committee will vote for my amendment, and if it fails, i hope they'll vote against the farm bill. mr. speaker, we cannot just indiscriminantly make hunger worse in the name of fiscal austerity. no, mr. speaker. we should look at these programs and ask ourselves, are these programs working? are they doing the job that they were designed to do? are they succeeding or failing? and how can we make them work better? but that's not what we're doing. do you know how many hearings we've had on snap in this congress, you know how many agriculture committee hearings we've had? none. we have not had one single hearing.
yet, there are 20 new members of the agriculture committee in this congress, 20 new members who have a right to learn about these issues, including the details of snap and the impact of these cuts. mr. speaker, this is not how we should be approaching this program. we should be holding hearings, we should ask questions, we should be thoughtful and we should look at the program in an honest way and our goal should be to end hunger now. unfortunately, this bill as written is more about protecting big agribusiness than it is about protecting hungry people today. mr. speaker, we need to do something about hunger now and i urge the white house to host a conference to end hunger now. hopefully they'll act on that soon but for today and tomorrow we must protect snap from unnecessary cuts. we must stand for the most vulnerable in our country and we must end hunger now, not make it worse. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore:
pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until the hour of
kathleen sbeelias will be briefing reporters -- sebelius will be briefing reporters. also in the news today, continued reaction to allegations that the i.r.s. has been targeting conservative political groups. the a.p. writes that the acting chief acknowledged on tuesday that the agency demonstrated a lack of sensitivity in screening political groups seeking tax-exempt status but those mistakes won't be repeated. teven miller said there was a, "shortcut" taken in the processees. the opening remarks on the senate floor, here's a look.
on friday we've been learned that the i.r.s. deliberately targeting conservative groups across the country in the midst of a heated national election. over the weekend we learned that the extent of it was even broader than we originally thought. then, this morning we all learned that the targeting wasn't limited to an i.r.s. office out of cincinnati as the administration suggested last week, but that it reached all the way to the i.r.s. headquarters right here in washington. what we don't know at this point is whether it jumped the to the m the i.r.s. white house. but we do know this. we can't count on the administration to be forthcoming about the details of this scandal because so far they've been anything but.
so this morning i'm calling on the president to make available completely and without restriction everyone, everyone who can answer the questions we have as to what's been going on at the i.r.s., who knew about it and how high it went. no stonewalling, no more incomplete answers, no more misleading responses, no holding back witnesses no matter how senior or current their positions. we need full transparency and we need full cooperation. the american people deserve answers. the answers that the i.r.s. has now owned up to and that were uncovered by their own inspector general are an outrage, an outrage.
we now know that the i.r.s. targeted groups for using such terminology as, get this, we, the people. and for educating folks about the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights. i mean, you can't make this stuff up. what's also clear is that government officials repeatedly, repeatedly failed to own up to what they knew was going on. when it turns out they've known about it since at least the middle of 2011. so the i.r.s. knew what was happening, yet, they continued to give us assurances they were applying the tax rules in a fair and impartial way. despite repeated, repeated assurances from the obama administration that it was not targeting its political enemies
through the i.r.s. during the last election cycle, we've now learned that the i.r.s. was in fact singling out conservatives groups, groups who dared to speak up and express their first amendment rights. so let's recap what happened. last march after receiving multiple claims of unusual harassment by the i.r.s. from constituents who wanted to form tax-exempt political organizations, i and several of my colleagues sent a letter to then-i.r.s. commissioner shulman questioning selective enforcement of tax-exempt organizations. now we learn, according to the i.r.s. own inspector general, that the i.r.s. was well aware this selective treatment was happening at the time our letter was sent. and in fact had already acted to correct what they later called inappropriate behavior.
but there was no answer to that in the initial response. nor was there mention of any of this behavior which was by the time well-known within the agency. in a second letter sent back to us back in september of 2012. so they had a second opportunity in 2012 to tell what they knew. we had to wait several more months to wait for a special investigator's report that republicans demanded in order to find out the truth of what was actually happening over at the i.r.s. in the coming days, we'll learn more and we'll start getting answers to questions like, was the i.r.s. deliberately misleading republican senators or was it betraying profound incompetence? but as i said the fact is none of this would have come out if
we relied on the administration's own word and republicans hadn't demanded to know the truth. now, clearly we've only started to scratch the surface of this scandal. the american people are looking for answers, and i'm determined to help them get to the bottom of this. last june, june of 2012, i gave a very public speech on which i called out the obama administration for serial abuses of government power and going after its political enemies in the middle of a heated national election. now, the left scoffed at the suggestion. "the washington post" said my speech was full of "red harings," end quote. "the new york times" called it "bogus" and robert wright called it bonkers. well, you know what we learned last week, these abuses were even more widespread than first thought. so it's good to see even some
of my droughtic colleagues criticizing the i.r.s. for such blatant and thuggish abuse of power. it's preferable to the silence or worse encouragement that they've demonstrated in the past. the chairman of the finance committee was correct in referring to the i.r.s. actions as an outrageous abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust. he's vowed to get to the bottom of what happened, and he's promised that his committee will hold hearings on all of this. those hearings, my friends, should be tough and they should aim to bring the light of truth to all of this. but our democratic friends should also acknowledge their role in cal indicating this culture of intimidation due to repeated calls of increased, increased i.r.s. scrutiny of groups like the very ones that ended up being targeted. now, we owe it to all americans
to get to the bottom, get right down to the bottom of this scandal and to hold those responsible accountable and to put the proper safeguards in place for moving forward because as the president was correct in noting yesterday, one day a republican will inhabit the oval office, and when he or she does, the left will want to know they will not be harassed for having the audacity, the audacity to disagree. that an agency like the i.r.s. will return to its proper role as completely nonpartisan and apolitical, not a tool, not a tool for an administration of one strife to bully and intimidate those who adhere to another. but in order for congress to effectively perform the oversight it needs to do,ed as mferings will have to -- the administration will have to make everyone available expeditiously. we have even more questions today than we did last year,
and we're not going to accept more half-baked responses. we want to get the full truth this time, and, madam president, we intend to get it. i yield the floor. >> again, senator mcconnell on the floor of the senate earlier today. also today in his first public comment on the i.r.s. case, the acting director said, "there was a shortcut taken in our processees for determining which groups needed special screening." word today that dave camp, chairman of the ways and means committee in the house, is planning a hearing on friday to look into the issue with the interim commissioner, steven miller. we'll keep you posted on our coverage plans. and meanwhile, we have been covering the second day of marking up the immigration and border security bill in the senate. saw that earlier here on c-span. it continues live on c-span radio and meanwhile on the house side today, a group of republicans led by steve king of iowa,
vowed they'd oppose that senate immigration bill. they held a briefing with reporters outside the house side of the u.s. capitol. here's a look. >> well, good morning. i appreciate you being here. we ordered up a nice day for an outdoor press conference so we can look at the capitol in the background and comment on what's happening with the immigration issue across in the senate and what's happening in this country. i'm congressman steve king. i represent iowa's fourth congressional district. and about three or four weeks ago, some of us were in discussion wondering when the conservatives were going to speak up on this amnesty bill that was unfolding in the united states senate and that was being -- i'll say -- put together behind the scenes in
the house. congressman lou barletta and i had a conversation on the floor. that started a meeting that we had, and about six people arrived at that meeting to discuss how we were going to protect and defend the rule of law. from that time we've had several other meetings, done a little bit other press and also pledged ourselves we were going o do one minutes floor speeches, op-eds, press speeches to get another viewpoint out. here it's not the one being stampeded in the senate and maybe stampeded in the house. so i would just submit to you that i have said on the -- sat on the immigration subcommittee. i'm into my 11th year. i don't know how many have spent time studying this issue than i have. one of them is lamar smith who is the author of the 1996 immigration reform act and just the most recent past chairman of the judiciary committee. he sends his regrets. he would very much like to be here. he has a pinch nerve in his
back that disallowed him to be here today. as is the case for lou barletta, who badly wanted to be here and couldn't make the transportation work out. he'll be passing out a letter that he wanted to submit. but both of those gentlemen wanted to join their support in this press conference. i would make this point that 844-page bill over in the senate, whether it amended or not in what ways we can anticipate it might be is still a terrible idea if you look at it from an economic perspective. at no stage in their lives do -- does the universe of those who received amnesty make a net financial contribution to this country. at no stage. not a single year out of all those years, and that's off of heritage foundation's report, robert recollecter's report, which many of you are familiar with. it destroys the rule of law and the rule of law is a pillar of americanep because we have
equal justice under the law. if we reward people who break the law, their children won't respect it. the rule of law, with regard to immigration, would be resteroid. and i don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face. we remember the 1986 amnesty act. each amnesty act since, and there are about six after that, smaller ones that didn't meet the news so much, and they also were the promises for the next group that would be amnestied. this group of 11.3 million they're calculating will be bigger than they say. that's always been the case. it was roughly going to be a million in 1986. it became three million in 1986. this number will be larger. it is predicted to be 33 million by the time you add in the legal and illegal. i believe that number perhaps grows from there. the assimilation is a different scenario than we have had in the past. i've noticed that the people that are for open borders
aren't really the embracers of assimilation. and assimilation is what has made america great, the giant melting pot. i want people to co-mingesle and intermingle. i -- co-mingle and intermingle. the promise about learning english, it's easy to follow through with that promise. let's just pass the official english bill. they aren't willing to do that because they're not serious. it doesn't take into consideration the illegal drugs that comes across the southern border. it's not so much of a promise but a promise. 80% to 90% of the illegal drugs that comes through america is from mexico. i can tell you i can secure the border with the resources that we have in less than five years if you gave me janet napolitano's job and the president doesn't tie my hands. the resources are there. they are not serious. we can't take these people seriously because the people on
the other side of the aisle, they want amnesty for a number of reasons. it's a big political boost for them. i don't understand why the republicans think it's a good idea. somehow they bought into this idea. from a national security standpoint, we know that we have large numbers, and those large numbers is a quantifiable number in a way. flow across the southern border that come to do us harm. so the big question i would pose out there is why, why is that 844-page bill, why is it good for america or americans? i can't get that answer on why it's good for us, but perhaps some of my colleagues do have some answers to that. i suspect they have some criticism. i'd like to first introduce the gentleman from texas and my good friend, louie gohmert. >> thank you. appreciate you coming out because this is a very, very critical issue for this country. we are a land of immigrants. native americans.
but the thing i loved that i saw the day after the worst attack in american history as people gathered around in courthouse squares like we did in my hometown, we held hands, we sang together. we prayed together. and as i looked around the circle at all races, creed, color, we had all types of folks there, but that day on 9/12/01 there was no hyphenated americans anywhere. we were all simply americans. that came from people migrating and becoming one union. e pluribus unum. that makes us strong. when we ignore the rule of law we actually become like countries that many immigrants are fleeing because the rule of law, if it's not observed, then
you have chaos, and so you have to come to a country where the rule of law is enforced. the only thing worse is to come and say now that we're here, we want you to ignore the rule of law that made you a much stronger country than wherever we came from, but then by ignoring the rule of law, you disintegrate into the same type of chaos from which these people came. there are -- we've been told there may be a billion, a billion and a half people in the world who would like to come to america. why? because we are fair. overall we're a good people, a fair people, an exceptional country. and we enforce the rule of law across the board. but if we fail to do that, if we say or we have a president, and it's not just confined to this president. the last president didn't sufficiently secure the border. but if we have a president who
his obligation to protect the country and to secure the boarders, and be sure you understand, nobody -- borders, and be sure you understand nobody behind me that supports our position wants a closed border. immigration is a life spring. it brings additional life and rejuvenation to this country. it's a good thing, but we have to make sure we don't get overwhelmed by people that want to destroy us and for those who've made fun of me commenting we had radical islamists trying to blend in with hispanics, all they needed to do was get off their lazy rears and do a little research and they'd find out that the director of the f.b.i. has previously testified before our committee that you had radical hispanic ho adopted
sounding names, would go to places like mexico, get identification papers and then try to blend in as if they were latin americans or hispanic americans and come across our border. we have an obligation to this country to make sure that those coming in want to be a part of the greatest nation and are willing to assimilate and be a part and not destructive of this country. that includes an enforcement of the visa overstays which over 40% of the people illegally here apparently are overstayed visas. you had people, boston, who had overstayed visas, and yet they were not being checked. and if the f.b.i. does not have the resources to check one individual who russia has given us a heads up on, has radicalized in wanting to harm america, then do you think the system will be better if we add
11 million more people all of a sudden instantaneously for the f.b.i. to check out and make sure they're not going to be a threat? there will be threats involved in that, just as we saw in boston when we had people who were linked to either terrorists or terrorism that were questioned and even one saudi that was wanting to be deported. it it is a danger to this country. so let me also say, for a president to say i'm not going to secure the border, which is his sworn obligation to protect this country, unless you give legal status to millions of people, it does a couple things. number one, as i've heard from sheriffs and border patrolmen, it's being a magnet. some of you reported, we got three, four, five times more people coming across our border just because of the talk of potential amnesty if they can get over here. and they say, oh, yeah, but we'll require proof.
well, in the fast we've seen proof can be composed of an of a davity signed by the -- affidavit signed by the individual, oh, i came before the time you said to be here. we have to first secure the border so only the people lawfully coming in come in. we do need to reform our immigration system. it's pitiful. it shouldn't take longer to get a visa here than a third world country. we're better than that. but for this president to say i won't secure the border unless you give legal status to all these people will be hypothetically like some and om president saying, hello, -- random president saying, hey, media, if you don't give good stories, i'll go into your phone records. or saying, hey, groups, you better get off our backs orwell' harass you with the i.r.s. -- or we'll harass you with
the i.r.s. how will a president say, i won't secure the border until you give legal status? thanks. >> thanks, louie. next up is john fleming of louisiana. >> thank you, steve. ladies and gentlemen, we know that the united states is a nation of immigrants, a nation of immigration. but it's a nation of laws. tanned we're here today to celebrate legal immigration. that is what we should do. however, i completely disagree with the bill that's percolating in the senate today. you know, it's often said that history is the best dermer of the future. and what has history told us? in 1986 we passed amnesty and now we have a bigger problem today than we did then because that bill promised amnesty prom
and we've yet to see those. also, i'm told it's 844 pages. when in recent years have we passed such a large bill and had a good outcome? i give you obamacare and dodd-frank as good examples of that. i really think that we need to tear this thing up and start from the beginning. we need to go back, be in our committees, go through the process and first and foremost we should pass a law that secures the borders first. second, we should pass a law and mesh it with technology to be sure that the 40% of unlawful immigrants who are here today as a result of overstays from their visas are properly tracked. once we do that, i think we can open up a dialogue about what we should do in america today with those who are he
unlawfully. but i suggest to you today that it's not through a giant bill that we know is just full of promises and full of contingencies when in fact we're not even fulfilling and enforcing the laws we have today. so i look forward to working with my completion on -- colleagues on this side to create some good legses, bills that we can be proud of. thank you. >> next up to hear a real arizona position, dr. paul gosar of arizona. >> well, good morning. you know, i always start the conversation, trust is as serious as promise is kept? what we need to do is we need to have an immigration policy and it starts with border security like you see in yuma, arizona. it actually works. so we need to reward great behavior and immolate exactly what works. we also have to look at what
legal immigration actually works for. nd i want to make sure we're embracing proper immigration. i'm a product of proper legal immigration. both my parents came from europe through ellis island. we're a great melting pot of people. the second thing i'd like to say is when we look at the met ricks, i think what all americans want is we got limited resources so i'm not very comfortable of having homeland security secretary janet napolitano dictating what is border security. i think it's an america feat where we use states' rights, federal agencies and local municipalities to help us. what we do on our southern border we do on other northern border and our ports. it works together. last but not least, before we go further, we have to reform our entitlement programs, because if we don't we'll surely break them for what's being proposed in the senate. let's break it up into smaller bills. let's make sure we air it out in front of the american people. as a physician, dentist, what
hurts, how does it help, it includes the american public so thank you very much. >> thank you, paul. and next up is the gentleman when i first talked to him when he came to this congress, i knew right away he understood the constitution and the rule of law and he lives by it and that's mo brooks of alabama. >> thank you, steve. in each of the past five years, 620,000 to 1.05 million foreigners have been given american citizenship. no country on earth comes close to being as generous as america is with its citizenship. the immigration issue is not about whether america is compassionate and generous. we are. the immigration issue is about whether america has the financial resources to accept aurl of the world's immigrants into america. there are hundreds of millions of foreigners who, if they could, would emigrate to america. for example, in april of 2013, a pew centepoll revealed 20%
of all mexicans she they will emigrate to america if they can get away with it and another 15% said they would emigrate to america if they could lawfully do so. that's 38 million people from just one country who want to emigrate to americ america suffers from consecutive trillion-dollar deficits and $17 trillion accumulated debt. unless america changes its financial path, america will suffer a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that will usher in one of the worst three or four airas in america's history. america's immigration policies must reflect america's dire financial condition. america must limit immigration based on how many immigrants a year our economy can absorb. two, limit immigrants to net tax producers. i.e., those people who we have confidence in who will generate more in taxes than they
consume. because they have, these people, viable skillsets that the economy needs. two, advance degrees in intellect that can support our medical high tech and other intellect-driven industries or, three, financial resources that can help create new jobs and businesses in america. and then finally and most importantly, we must enforce our immigration laws, whatever the consensus may be in congress on what they should be. the president and the senate gang of eight pushed an amnesty bill that fails all of these tests. it gives amnesty to people whose first step on american soil was illegal conduct. it costs american taxpayers a 50-year net tax loss of $6.3 trillion. it does not secure america's borders. it relies on a president who has proven he believes he is above the law and has no intention of securing america's borders or enforcing america's immigration laws. america cannot afford to open massive immigration floodgates any more than it can afford an
amnesty plan that awards illegal conduct while adding $6.3 trillion to america's already dangerous and exploding debt, a debt, i might add, that is already significantly damaging america's economy and national security. i can't speak for anybody else, but i can speak for myself. i cannot in good conscious ratify illegal conduct with my vote. under no circumstance will i support the president and senate gang of eight's amnesty plan. thank you. >> thank you, mo. and next up is another gentleman from texas who does stand strong on every issue that he takes a stand on, steve stockman. >> i think this bill is unfair to the hispanics who follow the law. it's unfair to lebanese who follow the law. it's fundamental to all the people that came here legally, it's fundamentally unfair to them. they have a gang of eight. we're going to have a gang of
millions because you can watch this bill as it processes through the house committees that it will rise up against it and it will fail because the people are stronger than the gang ever eight. we have a gang of millions behind us. you'll watch. this bill is not going to -- as it's being exposed, 900 pages, it will fail on its own merit and we'll stand behind our bill and modify it and make it better and treat those that came here legally with respect and decency. we can't tell the people that came here legally, oh, you're different. we'll allow these people break the ruleses while you follow the rules. i'm proud to stand with my colleagues here and we'll fight to defend this constitution. thank you. >> thank you, steve. i just make a statement before we turn it over to questions and that is i want to express to y'all how bad this bill is. and some of us have dug down through it and read significant parts of it and some of us has also gone through the people that have taken it apart piece by piece and title by title which is supposedly going over
in the senate. we won't get an open debate in this bill unless we do it in some other venue than the united states congress. it will be set up in a different way. we'll get a debate all right in the house of representatives. but it won't be an open one that let's us really get down and take it apart piece by piece. here's my understanding of it. it grants amnesty to everybody that's here. it sends an invitation to everybody that's been deported in the past and says to them, reapply because we really didn't mean it claws. reapply to come back to the -- mean it clause. reapply to come back to the united states. people that come here before the deadline, they'll get amnesty. everybody here, everybody deported, everybody that gets here will have amnesty. by the way, nobody's coming out of the shadows that doesn't want to come out of the shadows. the people that they think will be sorted out by this system, felons won't register up to --
won't show up to register. here's how bad this is. you know how badly i despice obamacare. i spent years of my life fighting against obamacare. i stood here many, many times. i despies this bill because it's an unconstitutional takings of our bodies, our health, our skin and everything inside it. it's a terrible, and it diminishes the destiny of america. if i have to choose between accepting -- if i came down to this -- if somehow an offer that you said you have to get one or the another, what would you take? i'd take obamacare and take that before i'd accept this amnesty plan because the amnesty plan is far, far worse than obamacare. that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. we can over time get back to if and get back to our doctor-patient relationship. if this amnesty goes through, there is no undo you go it. the genie will be a puff of
smoke. you will not get him back in the bottle and we'll have to live in perpetuity. that was not the thing envisioned by ronald reagan or our founding fathers. i remember an article by ed meese and said if ronald reagan had amnesty to do over again he'd not make the same mistake. i hope he reiterates this op-ed sometime in this debate. uestions from the panel? >> is there some things you'd like to see improved from the senate bill or other things efore you entertain a dialogue on legalization? >> don't have the technical expertise to determine the best way to secure the border or when it's fully secured. what i would do, if i were on that committee, is i would ensure that those who do would testify, would give us that information.
we would follow that pathway, and then and only then when we have come to that decision, made that law and then fully implemented it would i then move forward on anything dealing with those who were here unlawfully. > what about these met ricks -- metrics? >> remember what this bill does. we'll get to the secure borders but right now we'll take care of the 11 million-plus who are here unlawfully. nd it's just full of contingencies. i think the goal is 90%. right now our goal is 100% protection of the border and we're not even coming close. so we're going to lower the bar and create more difficulties and expect somehow we're going to meet even a lower goal? so i suggest again we go back
to the beginning and we say let's raise the bar back up to 100% protection of the boarder, come up with a metric, follow through on the programs which i understand have already been in place but never fully implemented and then and only then do we move forward with anything else. except for, of course, tracking of those who are overstays on their visas. we can do that simultaneously. >> if i could add on that, we know historically what has worked before, historically i'm not a big fan of woodrow wilson. we know after poncho via came across and killed -- villa came across and killed americans, woodrow wilson did secure the border. he put troops on the border. new thing called the national guard. they secured the border. nobody came across that the united states didn't want crossed. it can be done. was with a sheriff last night
from arizona who was saying that very thing. he's part of a reserve unit. they secured their sector. it can be done, and as steve said earlier, this president has the ability, he has the manpower, he has the money. he just doesn't have the will until he extorts what he wants. >> ma'am. >> many republicans in your body have a watershed moment with the hispanic voters. after 2010 they were concerned about moving forward. what would you say to those [inaudible] >> well, i'm incredulous what they drew when the sun came up on the morning of november 7. the republicans lost. mitt romney would be the president-elected on that morning if he didn't say two words, self-deport. is it wrong to stand up for the rule of law and the data that is contrary to the allegations
that they've made? since they know this is a huge boon for democrats. they have known that for a long time. in 2006 or so on a day about like this, there were tens of thousands over on the west lawn of the capitol. teddy kennedy came out before them and said through an interpreter, spanish interpreter, he said, some say report to be deported. i say report to become an american citizen. i saw that live on c-span. i wasn't standing next to him that day. but that was the message which is we're going to recruit all you folks that we're going to give amnesty to to become democrats. they know that. they learn that. they're seeking to process another voting block and that's why they spend tens of millions calling republicans racists and somehow the republicans advocating for this completely ignore the fact. so this is -- there's not a rational approach on the part
of them. i ask them a lot. they say we have to grant this because it starts a conversation. so they'd sacrifice a rule of law on the ultra-political expediency starting a conversation to be sure that republicans would not win another national election, in my view. >> let me follow-up on your remarks. i don't do what i do based on votes. but if you want to get not politics and the vote dynamics. i seek the votes of law-abiding citizens. it doesn't make any difference to me what race they are, sex they are, where their country of origin is. recently, decades ago or centuries ago. and the american citizens who've elected me to office, to the united states congress, have done so because i support the rule of law. the american citizens i know from all backgrounds, they support the rule of law. and that means you do not sacrifice your principles for political expediency. that is the wrong direction to
go. that undermines what america is. i will do what i think is in the best interest of america and i'll allow the voters to know whether they agree with my approach come next election. >> are you against -- [inaudible] >> absolutely not. the hispanics that i know in my community, they want people who understand the importance of the rule of law. that's what this is all about more so than anything else. that's why i cannot in good conscience ratify with my vote illegal conduct. who can with good conscience ratify illegal conduct? that does not represent the principles that have made america what we are. now, bear in mind, i come back from a legal background. ve been a prosecutors in tuscaloosa. and i understand the importance of passing the laws that we passed. if the laws are bad, change the laws.
if we need to have a different metrics, but whatever that matrix is, whatever the standards are, you have to enforce it or else you become an open border society and you promote something different than the rule of law, i.e., criminal conduct, and we cannot afford anarchy if we're going to have a democracy. >> one more thing to that. , i we talk about hispanics know the democrats have spent a lot of money trying to villeify us, but the hispanics i know generally speaking have a faith in god. they love their families and they have a strong work ethic. those are three things i think made america great, that i think have been waning in recent years. so i think the hispanic culture has so much to bring and can help rejuvenate america. and i have confidence that once people have done the research
and see which party stands for what and see which party is more pro-life and more pro-family and embraces a faith in god that they'll become republicans. i have great confidence that a majority will. so this is not about, are you giving up on hispanic votes. i think they will ultimately be republicans. but this is an issue about are we going to follow the rule of law, are we going to allow it to be abandoned on the alter of what's best politically? and there's been too many decisions made for that purpose and i think it's time to make decisions for what's best for america. >> go over here. yes, ma'am. >> i see a lot of border states represented here but i don't see any californians. >> i have to look across the roster and see but we have a lot of rule of law republicans that stand with us that aren't
here today as well. this number is growing within our conference. i want to say this that for people to take on a label and say they are conservatives but they are for a bill that is a $6.3 trillion deficit over that period of time and a bill that -- would identify clearly that the groups that they would bring in could not make a net financial contribution in any single year, that ought to take care of the conservative side of this. we are here for the rule of law. i want to see a healthy nation. i've said many times and i think is an important point to make. there is a vigor that comes with legal immigration that's unique to america. i could go down to the pillars of american exceptionalism where we could name them, speech, religion, press, we could go on. there is another pillar in addition to the rule of law in a we talked about today and that is american vigor because this country got the cream of the crop of every donor
civilization on the planet. we saw those inspired and thought they could become what they become only in america. they sacrificed when they came here. they didn't squander their opportunities. that's part of the equation for american vigor. then each generation taught that same thing to their children. that's why we are a can-do country. i don't want that to be destroyed of an idea being debated in the senate that destroys the rule of law. one more question and wrap it up. right here, sir. >> do you believe the house leadership, chairman goodlatte, speaker boehner, do you believe they're on your side of this debate or the other side and if they are on the other side, how are you going to prevent this? >> if they are not on our side i suggest they are convertibles. i worked with chairman goodlatte for more than 10 years on two committees, judiciary and ag. i know him well. i know how he thinks.
he's a very smart man with a good set of values. he's put out, proposed agenda that will be one bill, one issue at a time. one issue is what i saw chris van hollen say the other day, we could pass out of this house one, two, three immigration bills that would be messaged to the senate. it might be an everify, guest worker bill. and once they got sent over to the senate, if the senate passes their amnesty bill, i'm concerned that house leadership could appoint a conference committee and that conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill that's in the senate and send it to the floor unamendable, one or down vote, in which case every democrat would vote for it, it would take a couple dozen republicans and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. i'm most concerned about that and i'll continue to talk about that. i've got confidence in bob goodlatte especially since i worked with him so closely. thank you so much for being here.
thank you my members and colleagues. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> house republican members from about two hours ago. the senate judiciary committee in recess. they have been marking up the immigration bill. we'll have live coverage on c-span3 and also meanwhile, here on c-span in just under 10 minutes or so, we expect to take you to a brief, tell you about that in a minute. first on immigration. the hash tag we've been using for your thoughts on immigration is immigration. > again, more at the
the hash tag is immigration. eric holder and kathleen sebelius, the news conference is about the latest efforts to combat medicare fraud but it's being held with the understanding with the new story about the justice department secretly obtaining two months of telephone records from reporters. in fact, this afternoon, the chairman of the national committee is calling on the attorney general to resign after the justice department made known they had obtained two months worth of telephone records from reporters and editors at the associated press. it's possible we'll hear questions on that coming up, 1:00 eastern, just a few minutes away, we'll have it live for you here on c-span. in the meantime, more about the issue from this morning's "washington journal." host: and we're back. jenny is joining us from atlanta this morning. she's the co-founder and c.e.o. of the tea party patriots here to talk about i.r.s. targeting
conservative political groups like her own. jenny beth martin, the president yesterday asailed the i.r.s. for their actions. what did you make what he had to say? guest: well, i'm glad he's acknowledging his actions -- their actions. he said if the i.r.s. knew this, on friday, lois lerner, an attorney from the i.r.s., said the i.r.s. did know about this. so it's not a question of if the i.r.s. knew. it's a question of when the i.r.s. knew and who else knew about it. host: steven miller, acting commissioner of the i.r.s. writes in "the u.s.a. today," "mistakes were made but no way due to any political or partisan motivation. we'll continue to be dedicated to reviewing all applications for tax-exempt status in an impartial manner." guest: so did they single out other groups? from they looking more that had tea party or patriots or others
in the name? names wanting a better america for americans? all of the documentation that we're seeing shows they were targeting conservative groups, especially groups like mine at tea party patriots. host: we learned yesterday that a lawyer representing tea party groups, there will be a lawsuit against the government. are you taking part, your group taking part in that lawsuit? guest: we are talking to our counsel right now, reviewing the costs we have incurred with our accountants and determining exactly how much damages we've suffered because of the delay tactics and discrimination from the i.r.s. and we are looking at all legal options. at this point we intend to press forward with legal action. host: what has been the cost to your organization? can you give us an estimate right now? guest: i am not able to give that estimate. our accountants are working on it.
i don't want to throw a number out without making sure that the number i give is accurate. right now i don't have a number to give. host: can you explain the extra i.r.s. scrutiny? what did they do? what information did they ask for? how did it work? guest: all right. i want to first say in 2009 when people -- not people -- but groups applied for 501-c-4's and 50-c-3 status, it would take four to nine months to get approved. our applications were submitted in 2010. there are other groups who submitted their applications in late 2009 and in 2010, early 2011. many of those groups still have not heard back with a final definitive approval or rejection from the i.r.s. with tea party patriots, the i.r.s. is still stringing us along. they acknowledged they received our applications, did not do a lot with it throughout 2011 and then in 2012 sent us a six to eight-page letter asking for all sorts of information from us, including what we -- emails
we had sent out, what's on our facebook posting and the comments on our facebook page, not just what we posted but any fan or person that's on facebook that happened to complement on our actions put on there, who our donors were even though by law we're allowed to keep those donors private or confidential if they're less than a certain threshold amount. we have over 400,000 donors and our average donation size is around $50. that's the vast majority of our donors are legally allowed to be kept confidential. the i.r.s. had no business asking for that information. and the list goes on. it just -- the questions they were asking, some i understand they need to know. re you really a 501-c-4 or 501-c-3 and more questions were a fishing expedition and we didn't know what they would do it once they had it in their hands? we didn't trust it to keep it
confidential. host: there was a piece written on mother jones. the explosion of 501-c-4 groups is a genuine one. they have grown like -- lots of hem are used primarily as -- guest: ok. flagging dubious groups, one of the things the i.r.s. uses their criteria for flagging groups were groups educating on the constitution and the bill of rights. the constitution and bill of rights. that's our founding documents. that's not a dubious questionable activity, and it certainly is one that would fall under 501-c-3 activity. it's education and training. now, i would agree there was an explosion of groups. i even encouraged coordinators
who were receiving these questions from the i.r.s. to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume there was a lot of activity and it might take a while to provide sess it. and so i agree with that and i understand that, but there's a difference between processing it and figuring out how you're ing to hand it and marking educating on the constitution and the bill of routes, which ensures our free speech is dubious or red flag, that is absolutely, absolutely the wrong message the government needs to be sending to the people of this country. .